IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v55y2022i2d10.1007_s11077-022-09462-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation use and learning in public policy

Author

Listed:
  • Pirmin Bundi

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Philipp Trein

    (University of Lausanne)

Abstract

Scientific evidence has become increasingly important for the decision-making processes in contemporary democracies. On the one hand, research dealing with the utilization of scientific knowledge in the political process has pointed out that decision-makers learn from evidence to improve policies to solve problems. On the other, scholars have underlined that actors learn from evidence to support their political interests regardless of how it affects the policy problem. One conventional insight from the policy learning literature is that higher salience of a policy issue makes it much less likely that decision-makers use evidence in an “unpolitical” way. Nevertheless, only few studies have investigated systematically how differences regarding issue salience between policy fields impact on how decision-makers learn from evaluations at the individual level. Using multilevel regression models on data from a legislative survey in Switzerland, this paper shows that salience and technical complexity of policy issues do not automatically lead to less policy learning and to more political learning from policy evaluations. Nevertheless, this article’s empirical analysis also points out that issue salience increases policy learning from evaluations if the policy issue is technically complex. Our findings contribute to research on policy learning and evidence-based policy making by linking the literature on policy evaluation and learning, which helps analyzing the micro-foundations of learning in public policy and administration.

Suggested Citation

  • Pirmin Bundi & Philipp Trein, 2022. "Evaluation use and learning in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 283-309, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:55:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-022-09462-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-022-09462-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-022-09462-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-022-09462-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eva Lieberherr & Eva Thomann, 2020. "Linking throughput and output legitimacy in Swiss forest policy implementation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 495-533, September.
    2. Carol H. Weiss, 1989. "Congressional committees as users of analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 411-431.
    3. Falk Daviter, 2015. "The political use of knowledge in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(4), pages 491-505, December.
    4. Bundi, Pirmin & Varone, Frédéric & Gava, Roy & Widmer, Thomas, 2018. "Self-Selection and Misreporting in Legislative Surveys," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 771-789, October.
    5. Johnson, R. Burke, 1998. "Toward a theoretical model of evaluation utilization," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 93-110, February.
    6. Nils C. Bandelow, 2008. "Government Learning in German and British European Policies," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 743-764, September.
    7. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    8. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    9. May, Peter J., 1992. "Policy Learning and Failure," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 331-354, October.
    10. Fabrizio Gilardi, 2010. "Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 650-666, July.
    11. William Rogers, 1993. "Quantile regression standard errors," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(9).
    12. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:46:y:2008:i::p:743-764 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2003. "Problem-solving effectiveness and democratic accountability in the EU," MPIfG Working Paper 03/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mauricio I. Dussauge-Laguna, 2022. "The promises and perils of populism for democratic policymaking: the case of Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 777-803, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    2. Martino Maggetti & Philipp Trein, 2022. "Policy integration, problem-solving, and the coronavirus disease crisis: lessons for policy design [Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: The problem of policy accumulation]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 53-67.
    3. Blom, Tannelie & Radulova, Elissaveta & Arnold, Christine, 2008. "Theorizing Modes of Governance in the EU: Institutional Design and Informational Complexity," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 4, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    4. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Philipp Trein, 2023. "Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 9-27, March.
    5. Moshe Maor, 2020. "Policy over- and under-design: an information quality perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 395-411, September.
    6. Allam, Dina, 2021. "Explaining the persistence of “decentralisation” of education in Egypt," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. Yuanyuan Huang & Lizhen Wei & Guiwen Liu & Wenjing Cui & Fangyun Xie & Xun Deng, 2022. "“Inspiring” Policy Transfer: Analysis of Urban Renewal in Four First-Tier Chinese Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-31, December.
    8. Fu, Tong & Jian, Ze, 2020. "A developmental state: How to allocate electricity efficiently in a developing country," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/2b86iahfka8nib85jevjn10bsn is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Askarov, Zohid & Doucouliagos, Hristos, 2015. "Spatial aid spillovers during transition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PA), pages 79-95.
    11. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    12. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    13. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Enno Siemsen & Kenneth A. Bollen, 2007. "Least Absolute Deviation Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(2), pages 227-265, November.
    15. Van Geyt, Debby & Van Cauwenberge, Philippe & Vander Bauwhede, Heidi, 2014. "Does high-quality corporate communication reduce insider trading profitability?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-14.
    16. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Carter, Michael & Morrow, John, 2014. "The political economy of inclusive rural growth," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Eriksson, Martin & Pettersson, Thomas, 2012. "Adapting to liberalization: government procurement of interregional passenger transports in Sweden, 1989–2008," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 182-188.
    19. Cassette, Aurélie & Creel, Jérôme & Farvaque, Etienne & Paty, Sonia, 2013. "Governments under influence: Country interactions in discretionary fiscal policy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 79-89.
    20. Peter Egger & Doina Radulescu & Nora Strecker, 2017. "On the spread of social protection systems," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(4), pages 550-574, August.
    21. Alberto Arenal & Claudio Feijoo & Ana Moreno & Sergio Ramos & Cristina Armuña, 2021. "Entrepreneurship Policy Agenda in the European Union: A Text Mining Perspective," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 243-271, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:55:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-022-09462-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.